Chennai Court August 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
D. Sundaresan Vs. the Management of Triplicane, Urban Co-operative Soc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ885Mad
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition is for quashing the award of the second respondent in I.D.No. 84 of 1984 dated March 19, 1986.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed in the first respondent - company as an Accountant. Originally under the Bye-laws, the superannuation age was 55 years. He had to retire on June 23, 1982. But on July 23, 1979 the Registrar of Co- operative Societies issued a direction to increase the age of superannuation from 53 to 58. The petitioner was not given the benefit of extension. He was superannuated on June 23, 1982. Hence he raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court has dismissed the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that there was an original proposal to extend the age with reference to 7 persons. The other persons were given extension, but the petitioner was not. Hence, there was discrimination. This aspect has not been properly considered by the Labour Court. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition for ...
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras Vs. the Presiding Officer, Ii Additio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ923Mad
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. As the matter lies in a very narrow compass and as the contesting respondent is represented, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated February 8, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P. 11035 of 1995, in which the petitioner/appellant has sought for quashing the award dated March 28, 1994 passed in I.D. 309 of 1993. 3. Learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that even though twice an opportunity was given to the writ petitioner/appellant, it did not avail of the same and did not adduce evidence, therefore the jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised in favour of such a party. Accordingly, learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. 4. Before us, it is contended that the award is not a speaking order, in as much as it neither considers evidence, nor gives reason for passing the award, directing the 2nd respondent to be reinstated with backwages, co...
Munivel Vs. Munusamy Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC26; (1996)IIMLJ594
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard both sides. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge of Tindivanam dated 31.10.1989 in A.S. No. 76 of 1987 which was preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 489 of 1982, dated 30.4.1987 on the file of learned District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.2. The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 489 of 1982 on the file District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, against the appellant's mother Veeralakshmi Ammal who died pending the suit stating that he is the absolute owner of the property by purchase under the sale deed dated 26.6.1962, that though the sale deed is standing in the name of the mother of the appellant, she was only a benamidhar for his benefit. Hence the appellant disputed the title of the first respondent and the suit was necessitated. The appellant resisted the suit contending that the suit properties were purchased by his mother out of the fund provided by his father, that the respondent who is ...
The Special Officer, Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. the Speci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ544
ORDERN. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. A short, but an interesting question of law arises in the writ petition on the scope of Section 71 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner, a co-operative society, had a High Speed Diesel Oil Consumer Bunk to supply diesel and other lubricants to the lorry contractors and other vehicles of the Mills. It was found that there was a stock deficiency of the diesel and other lubricants and hence, the petitioner initiated an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act to determine the stock position of the high speed diesel oil and other lubricants. In the enquiry so conducted, it was found that there was a stock deficiency of 9621 litres valued at Rs. 13,565.51 for the period from 1.10.1976 to 30.9.1977, and again 492 litres valued at Rs. 713.40 for the period from 1.10.1977 to 18.5.1978, and the enquiry report also stated that the stock deficiency was due to the wilful negligence of duty by the re...
N. Sasikala Vs. Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2120; 1997(1)CTC317
ORDER1. The petitioner is seeking for modification of an order D/- 20-8-1996 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O. 1, Madras ordering the petitioner to furnish a bond for Rs. 3 crores and also with cash security for the same amount with two sureties of like sum each or cash security for case one of the sureties for the said amount. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate are impossible of compliance and the petitioner does not have the wherewithal to furnish case deposit or even to find sureties to the above amount. The petitioner further submitted that the conditions attached to the bail order amounts to denial of bail and per se unreasonable.3. The respondent submitted that the conditions so imposed are purely the discretion of the Court and that the learned Magistrate has considered the extent of seriousness and cumulative effect of the case and has fixed and quantum. It is also contended on behalf of respondent t...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Kasturi Estate (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)187; [1997]228ITR376(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In compliance with the order of this Court dt. 5th April, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following questions, for the opinion of this Court under s. 26(3) of the GT Act, 1958 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the assessment of deemed gift under s. 4(1)(a) of the GT Act on the ground that there was no transfer involved when the company reduced its capital and that the assets were given to the shareholders for adequate consideration 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of s. 4(1)(a) of the GT Act, 1958, could not be invoked in the assessee's case ?' 2. The assessee was a private limited company having capital of rupees twenty-four lakhs divided into 2,400 shares of Rs. 1,000 each. By a resolution under an extraordinary general body meeting held on 30th November, 1961, the company reduced its capital to Rs. 5,04...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M. Ratanchand Chordia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR626(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction by this Court in TCP No. 563 of 1982 dt. 11th April, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 23(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the annual letting value of the property at No. 35-A, Mount Road, should be taken on the basis of actual rent received and not on the basis of the value fixed by the Corporation of Madras 2. In the asst. yr. 1977-78, the assessee, an individual deriving income from house property, money lending and other sources, was assessed by the ITO by computing the property income adopting the annual letting value at the municipal valuation of Rs. 68,578 instead of actual rental receipt of Rs. 51,150 adopted by the assessee. On appeal, the AAC accepted the assessee's contention that the annual actual r...
K.T.M.S. Mahmood Vs. Income-tax Officer (Sixth) and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: [2000]241ITR206(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This writ petition is posted for hearing today. Mr. Devanathan, Advocate, represented the petitioner. Learned senior standing counsel for income-tax cases Mr. S. V. Subramaniam represented that the writ petition has been filed for a mandamus, directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 1,90,186 stated to be the due with future interest as per the provisions of sections 240 and 244 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case of the writ petitioner is that the refund has become due to the petitioner consequent to an appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2054 of 1979, dated May 12, 1980, deleting certain additions made in the assessment of the petitioner allowing the appeal preferred, by the petitioner. Learned senior standing counsel represented that as against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2054 of 1979, dated May 12, 1980, the Income-tax Department has filed T.C.P. No. 316 of 1982, and T.C.P. No. 213 o...
Rajamani, Wife and Nominee of S. Rajaopalan (Since Deceased) and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ104Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is for quashing the order of the first respondent dated October 20, 1986 in P.G. Nos. 5 to 9 of 1986 and to direct the second respondent to pay the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioners.2. The case of the petitioners is that originally they including the deceased V. Pitchai (3rd Petitioner) retired from service from Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mill Limited (Now under Liquidation). They have been working continuously without any interruption. Hence they were entitled for gratuity. The third respondent paid the amounts based on their arbitrary and illegal a calculations. Taking advantage of their superior and dominating position subsequently, the Labour Union Leaders advised them that the payment of gratuity was not in conformity with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Management deleted certain years of service in total years of service on the ground that they did not work for 240 days in those years. Hence the petitioners filed claim peti...
Senior Regional Manager, Food Corpn. of India and 2 ors. Vs. Kamatchi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1038Mad
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The respondents Authorities of the Food Corporation of India, Madras, in W.P. No. 7863 of 1986 are the appellants in the above Writ Appeal which has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated April 26, 1996 allowing the Writ Petition and granting certain specified reliefs in the light or the subsequent development in the case.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that one late Varadhan who was working as a Picker under the second appellant died on October 13, 1984 and thereafter the writ petitioner, said to be the wife of late Varadhan claimed for the settlement of the terminal benefits due to her deceased husband by sending a notice dated November 6, 1984 to the first appellant herein through her counsel. The writ petitioner was referred by the first appellant to the second appellant for further course of action and the second appellant by his communication dated February 7, 1985 called upon the writ petitioner to produce a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »